Primates and Morality

A recent article from the New York Times presents evidence that traits of moral behavior may be found in some primate species. This data could push ethics beyond the realm of philosophy and into biology if there is a link discovered between genetics and moral behavior. Applying this to the ideas of Kant or Hegel, it truly brings into question the role that reason and religion, two historic attributed origins of morality, play in defining moral behavior as a human-specific feature. However, the prominent view of biologists is that reason is not necessary for morality, but comes after a moral action.

Biologists like Dr. de Waal believe reason is generally brought to bear only after a moral decision has been reached. They argue that morality evolved at a time when people lived in small foraging societies and often had to make instant life-or-death decisions, with no time for conscious evaluation of moral choices. The reasoning came afterward as a post hoc justification. “Human behavior derives above all from fast, automated, emotional judgments, and only secondarily from slower conscious processes,” Dr. de Waal writes.

But ethics is the study of the difference between what a behavior is, and the
justification of why that behavior is considered good or bad. This is something that biology is unsuited to. However, if morality does have a biological link, the ideas that we have developed over the last two thousand years could have serious questions asked of them, which is never a bad thing.